Response to Hey Mike Kelly!

I did not say other regimes were OK. They need to be changed too. Can you not see that a more western style government in Saudi Arabia would also benefit the US but then do you want them to go in and forceably change that or will you protest at that too? or Kuwait or North Korea. Will you allow US planes in Shannon if they mount an attack on those countries? I believe the UN should be tacling these but it has not got the teeth to do it.
Afghanistan IS better off without the Talibans. You say very little has changed. Government-sanctioned public executions have stopped for one. Women having to to wear burkas hardly compares. Some might even say that you do not respect their culture by suggesting the burkha wearing etc. is a sign of oppression. I would not say that by the way, as I believe that women (and men) should have western style freedoms. You admit that some of the country has been "liberated". that in itself is progress. Just because the entire improvement has not happened fast enough does not mean that it has not been a worthwhile improvement.
In fact you seem to accept that the Afghani people are better off since the removal of the Taliban. It is the degree to which they are better you question. I would agree not enough has changed. But things like this happen slowly.
You quote UN reports on Iraqi children and yet the sanctions on Iraqi are UN sanctions not US sanctions.You accept the UN's reports but you dont accept the UN resolutions? SH can end sanctions immediately if he has the will.Letting him run rings around the UN is only sowing seeds of violence by state led wars in undermining the UN and this I believe is even more of a threat than the terrorist seeds of violence you worry about (though these have to be met too). Once the SH has been disarmed then the sanctions will end, and food etc can be distributed to the people who need it mostand thus humanitarian suffering will be lessened not increased.
I believe The Humanitarian cost of not disarming SH is worse than the Humanitaroan cost of doing nothing about him. There was a huge humanitarian cost in the allies going into WWII and lots of people suffered and died but the end result was less suffering. I would prefer a peacful solution to this but the potentional for further and increased humanitarian cost is higher by not doing anything. The premise that lots will die if war starts and noone will die if war doesnt start is not valid.
Rachel as far as I know SH regime provides them with no rations, the UN (including the US ) provide rations that is presently sustaining 70% of the population.
If you think the best way to deal with terroriosm is to give in to their demands I'm afraid I do not agree with you. SOme people do not listen to reason. The seeds of further violence have already been sown. The best way to protect our children from terrorism is to root it out. Im sorry but that is the world we live in. I would love to think that terrorists can listen to reasonable arguments and debate but I have seen enough to know that this is rarely the case with those un elected groups who prefer to use force to further their political aims.I wish there was a better solution. Un fortunately I do not believe there is one. I believe that diarming SH will make my children safer though there is more to be done to make them safe enough. Do you think Bin Laden was not weakened by the attack on Afghanistan and that the reason sep 11 has not been repeated is because he has learnt the error of his ways? I dont think so. You say the region is alreay destabilised -true. SO what is your solution to making it safer RIGHT NOW. Wait and see how things turn out?
Garret I agree to a point. But his whole regime needs to go. He is just one man. If another similar ones jyust takes over in a similar regime then nothing will change

Created By: mike kelly